Feminism is only for middle-class, white women, apparently(41 Posts)
Long-time lurker here but have decided to finally post.
I have been belatedly following the twitterstorm surrounding Caitlin Moran's hasty and dismissive tweet about how she ''literally couldn't give a shit about it'' when a twitter follower asked her whether or not in a recent interview she had questioned Lena Dunham about about the absence of non-white characters in the TV series, 'Girls'.
So far, so ignorant for Moran's brand of pop-feminism. However, Vagenda editors, Rhiannon and Holly, recently wrote a defence of Caitlin Moran's position that sweepingly claims that ''feminism has always been a white, middle-class movement''.
And feminism that uses big words like 'intersectionality' is too confusing for women so better not to bother with it.
It is seemingly too-complicated to include other underrepresented groups into mainstream feminism. I see....Let's just carry on as usual, then...
Agreed Stewie. Ayaan Hirsi Ali refers to the luxury of their 'choices' when so many women are denied fundamental rights let alone a 'choice'....
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Speaking of women making choices heres Xenias take on it.
XeniaThu 08-Nov-12 21:27:50
As I said pick a holiday you enjoy. We love it. It's about being in fresh air and moving all day. It is also or was when they were younger about being a very snowy place where Father Christmas and the rein deer can get their sleigh. Very Christmasy
I am just saying that mothers, particularly those who did not make bad career choices which mean they have no money, can ensure a happy Christmas they enjoy which is not put upon martyr. As ever it is a feminist issue - housewife equals alwful life in relative poverty. Full time working mother in good job equals having the Christmas which can make the whole family happy
I think to say that feminism has always been a white, midlde class movement, as is quoted in the OP, is to miss the very real contribution of working class women who were of course the first group to campaign for childcare, to campaign for free and open access to contraception and to campaign for abortion. These were not middle class arguments (the middle classes could afford to get these things privately, so it was not a political issue). I'm talking late 19th/early 20th century. Non-white, non-middle class women were also involved in the fight for suffrage and other feminist causes. And so on.
The question is who it serves to portray feminism as a white, middle class movement and deny the fact that it is and has always been a broad church. Of course, there are different political and ideological approaches, there are differences of experience and identity, and so on, these must be recognised, but surely fighting for an end to women's oppression and inferior status is a common goal?
Or am I missing something? I mean, if you say to a white, middle class feminist campaigning on rape or domestic violence, for example, that she does not speak for women, because she is middle class, because she carries class privilege, you effectively silence her voice.
No summer you do not silence her voice but her perception of rape and the after effects of rape are going to be very diffrent from that of a muslim woman, a woman from a small ethnic grouping, a woman who has not got through lack of education or impairment, the ability to rind the help and support she needs for herself. I am afraid also your idea of a united struggle that certainly saw women from all classes take part in the struggle for suffrage, falls down a bit when some of the leading suffragettes were only arguing for votes for some women not all women. This will have been responsible for some of the views that feminism only benefits white middle class women.
It does not good at all to divide. Most of us are at one with women abroad who are fighting much worse discrimination. The heart of feminism is simple and unifying. People should not be discriminated on the grounds of their sex.
Feminism has hugely benefited working class British women. They can vote. They can own property. Many of them believe it or not actually pass exams and get good jobs and earn a fortune yes and were working class! Let us not be defeatist and saying working class women only can earn the minimum wage - that is not feminism at all.
Leithlurker, my point was to recognise the contribution that working class women, and ethnic minority women had made to the suffrage (and other) causes, not the views of certain middle and upper class women on this. Although I think that it was clear to the Pankhursts by the early 1900s that part of the opposition to women's suffrage was that critics said there was no demand for it, and they therefore needed working class women to support their cause. But the likes of the Women's Co-operative Guild were working class women's organisations and their contribution was certainly important, and it is all the more important given the poverty and lack of time that many of them experienced. The point I was responding to was that feminism has only ever been a white middle class movement, which is not true.
Although for what it is worth, I am guessing that if one regards having the vote as a benefit, then this extends across class and ethnic background?
As regards my point about rape, it feels like silencing. Yes, dear, you can access the services and help you need because you are educated and middle class, don't worry (how do you know that I can? There are a lot of assumptions in there). Of course different groups have different experiences and perspectives which are often not incorporated into the dominant discourse, and it is necessary to address this, but if those groups do not have the means to speak or to activate, then those in a more privileged position surely are obligated to help and support them? I mean, if I say that working class women are more often victims of sexual violence and I want to get involved in setting up a crisis support centre and raising awareness, should I just piss off because I am middle class, and my experience of sexual violence is different? (really?)
I'm not getting this, I'm sorry. Of course we all have different experiences and different factors of oppression, but making that the issue detracts from what I would have thought were common goals.
Xenia you are on the Asda thread on AIBU saying exactly the opposite. Taking the piss out of Asdas CEO because of his working class accent and saying they should have employed someone who had a better education from the middle classes.
You contradict yourself and gaslight a hell of a lot on these boards.
DarkesteyesWed 07-Nov-12 23:17:50
XeniaWed 07-Nov-12 18:38:49
This is not getting any better. I was hoping his hobbies might be philosophy or knitting or feminist politics or supporting human rights abroad or whatever but he is unreconstructed working class male made good with all the sexist baggage that brings. They should have recruited from Eton not at Grantham Fine Fare store hand...
I thought anyone was capable of advancement if they tried hard enough Xenia. Thats what you say in a lot of your posts.
The way you gaslight on these boards Xenia would put a lot of abusive partners to shame!
The ASDA thread was about sexism and class. I suggested unreconstructed working class men of the ASDA CEO's ilk who like sport and probably like their women in the kitchen lead from the top down and are just the job for ASDA with its working class demographic. I would love ASDA to be run by a working class women CEO whose husband does most of the cleaning. I don't see why my comments on that thread which simply recognise the class of people are regarded as different fro my views on here which are that we should not discriminateo n the grounds of sex. The ASDA advert does and it should not.
This can be a class issue actually. Less well educated working class men are heaps more likely to expect women to clean and clear up than men who marry women who are Oxbridge graduates and posh and earn a fortune.
Yes, because the 'Upper classes' are beacons of enlightenment, eschewing traditional gender roles aren't they? (Where is a 'snorts in disbelief' emoticon when you need one?]
I think among the nobs and toffs it is the woman's (excuse me, lady's) job to hire the cleaners.
Bah, stupid phone.
...though I don't think that bringing in comments of Xenia's from the Asda thread is helpful or illuminating really.
I watched a repeat of that BBC program about servants last night, with the historian whose background is of a working class family with a history of going into service. She was making the point that at the time of the women's suffrage movement, domestic servants were really very ignored, because the women employing them weren't prepared to allow them them rights the servants were starting to fight for... So although the domestic servants could come along to suffrage meetings if their female employer allowed or even helped then to attend, there was no question of their working life actually being improved in other ways, like a reduction in working hours or anything, heaven forfend! A massive intersectional / power problem there.
I think intersectionality is hugely important and as someone says above its heartening to see it being discussed more on MN. I was rather staggered that Caitlin M could even consider making the reply she did, to be honest. We can't fight all battles simultaneously, and I think it's reasonable enough to acknowledge which elements you're giving priority to (though then you have to be prepared to be challenged on that choice), but to simply say it's totally irrelevant? That's just rubbish.
Join the discussion
Please login first.